Legal Reform NowSo I was reading this random article and I was once again reminded that there are a number of, well... idiots in the world, who idiotically get themselves into idiotic postitions. What is the thought process by which someone who ".... think(s) it's wrong to bear arms and do(es)n't want to be involved with war," and finds " the thought of having a gun or having to kill someone ... revolting" decides to join the army!?! Even if these were just guys that were lookjing for money for college... you don't sign up for something abhorrent just to make a few bucks... how stupid are these people?

I'm thinking that there should be a mechanism by which such people can file to have themselves declared legally stupid. The status of legally stupid would allow such stupid people to get out of such things as military service, credit card debts, etc.... but would also prevent them from voting, owning a gun, (non-remedial) education assisance, operating dangerous machinery, etc -- things where intellegence is key. In addition, a court-appointed non-idiot will supervise any contracts or official documents filed by the idiot, to protect him from harming himself.

According to Laurence J. Kotlikoff of Boston University, the present value of the gap between promised outlays and projected revenues is $51 trillion -- more than four times the nation's annual GDP. Today the household wealth of Americans -- the value of their houses, 401(k)s, cars, refrigerators, toasters, socks, everything -- is about $42 trillion.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

I honetsly don't know much about the history of that clause and if it can indeed be used in the way suggested... sounds plausible, though.

He has a bit about the "sacredness of the Constitution" being more important than that of marriage, that I disagree, but can somewhat sympathize with, but I could sympathize with some broader procedural amendment that could stop crap like the current gay "marriage" fiasco from being created out of whole cloth by state and federal courts, but I don't see how that would work. For now, it sems like the best we can do is at least try to heard off these abuses.

Sigh.

Note: The link requires that you be registered on the Washington Post website; I encourage people to put 100% bogus information in the form!